Gordon v. Vasquez’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate ·

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “When a petitioner has not exhausted his state remedies before filing a federal habe-as petition, a district court may hold the federal petition in abeyance, issue a stay of execution, and allow the petitioner an opportunity to exhaust his state remedies.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 107 F.3d -828 - Calderon v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · Calderon v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of California

2. “If the meaning of the statute is clear, no further construction is required.... The statute at issue plainly commands federal appointment of attorneys for indigents seeking federal habeas corpus to review a state proceeding resulting in imposition of a sentence of death. It also commands that appointed counsel represent the defendant in all post-petition proceedings without regard to forum .... The statute’s plain meaning concerning the payment of fees without reference to forum is made clear by the congressional directive that federally appointed counsel represent the defendant in competency and clemency matters, see 21 U.S.C. § 848 (q)(8). Those proceedings ordinarily occur in state forums after the conclusion of the federal case....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 133 F. Supp. 2d 931 - Chambers v. Johnson

3. “[T]he statute does not textually confíne compensation to federal clemency proceedings. Instead, the statutory text authorizes compensation for representation in “proceedings for executive or other clemency as may be available to the defendant.” (Emphasis added). The only clemency proceedings available to petitioners under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 are those offered by the state. Thus, by entitling petitioners under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to attorneys and such other services as are available under subsection (8), Congress created in Petitioner an entitlement to paid counsel in connection with the proceedings for which Congress provided compensation when it enacted Section 848(q)(4)(B).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 133 F. Supp. 2d 931 - Chambers v. Johnson